tim's experiment

Some reader wrote to my newspaper the other week saying that taxi riders who see the driver throw something out of the window should make an immediate report to the authorities. He had done this often, he said proudly, and in every case the driver had been prosecuted for littering. Well nice one son. Of course we don’t want people breaking the law. Still, I wonder if I am the only one who is a bit uneasy about people with European names and expensive tastes in newspapers, who report minor crimes by people who probably earn about a tenth as much as the amateur sleuth does. 

I have been through this before. Many years ago the newspapers reported a case in which a Western gentleman, finding that the doorman at his block of flats was asleep, had called the police. The doorman was then prosecuted and fined. It is a crime for someone with a watchman’s licence to sleep on the job. I wrote a column saying that the nocturnal vigilante should be ashamed of himself. The doorman was in his 70s. What could you reasonably expect at 3 in the morning?  It then turned out that everyone involved in this matter except the dormant doorman was a member of the Hong Kong Press Club, of which at the time I was chairman. The complainant had been whingeing in the bar about how difficult it was for him to get home after a night’s drinking because he had to wake up the doorman. Another member pointed out that for a licensed watchman to sleep at his post was an offence, and recommended an early resort to the constabulary.  A row then ensued between those members who thought that people who drank until the small hours of the morning should be more tolerant, and those who supported the law enthusiasts. For the law it was argued that watchmen should be awake for security reasons. For tolerance it was argued that this was a pointless provision when they had nothing to do and the front door could be locked.

Actually I am a bit dubious about the idea that this particular piece of legislation is really aimed at public safety. It is a relic from the days when Hong Kong had lots of laws shamelessly designed to keep servants up to the mark by threatening them with criminal sanctions. It used to be a criminal offence to resign without giving notice, for example. To modern eyes it looks odd to use the criminal law to enforce what is reallya contractual matter between a worker and his employer.

This does not help us with the more general point, which is when in a city marred by a huge and growing gulf between rich and poor it is proper for the rich to snitch on the poor. Obviously we are going to report serious crimes, fights, assaults, traffic accidents and what have you. But littering?  Presented with a beggar in the street one may give some money, or one may heed the beseechings of the authorities and discourage the pursuit by keeping the cash. But would you call the police and have the beggar arrested for obstruction?  If the answer to this question is “no” then you draw a line somewhere between what should be overlooked and what should be reported. The question is where. I suppose different people will put it in different places. Personally I think those of us who do not have a personal stake in the proposed minimum pay law should try to be tolerant of the peccadilloes of those who do.  And if you think littering is a serious offence, get your head checked.